Geier Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Looks like a museum exhibit. Especially when it's placed open air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 What is thaT? Eeeeeh, A mig29 minutes before his MFD upgrade or else it was an unprotected Polish Mig29 on an airfield in Poland. Maybe they were searching for copper :D. DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The Flanker was also supposedly 'superior' to the F-15C in terms of TWR, but operationally it is quite a bit inferior at altitude (the F-15 has twice the climb rate about 7000m) Is this true? Please can you edit the wikipedia-data for me because it shows a different result? ;) Su-27: Rate of climb: 325 m/s (64,000 ft/min) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27 F-15C: Rate of climb: >50,000 ft/min (254 m/s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle#Specifications_.28F-15C_Eagle.29 DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Dude, what I said comes RIGHT out of the Su-27SK manual for its flight characteristics, in comparison in fact, with its main foe: The F-15. There are also comparisons with F-16 etc. TWICE the climb rate at altitude. You heard me. Suck it up. And I don't edit wikipedia ;) It's entirely possible that they are using initial climb rate, but there too the Eagle has it better according to those charts - the margina however is pretty small at low altitude so it isn't a real advantage. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Dude, what I said comes RIGHT out of the Su-27SK manual for its flight characteristics, in comparison in fact, with its main foe: The F-15. There are also comparisons with F-16 etc. TWICE the climb rate at altitude. You heard me. Suck it up. And I don't edit wikipedia ;) It's entirely possible that they are using initial climb rate, but there too the Eagle has it better according to those charts - the margina however is pretty small at low altitude so it isn't a real advantage. You were talking about the F-15 Streak eagle maybe! Not the F-15C…. :D DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 No, I was talking about the F-15C. Sounds more like that website has some initial climb rate that belongs to the P-42 though ;) The operational Su-27 does not have the TWR that the operational F-15C does, like it or not. Further, I doubt the Su-27SK manual would be comparing to the streak eagle. I somehow don't thinks Russian intel is that dumb ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TucksonSonny Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 No, I was talking about the F-15C. Sounds more like that website has some initial climb rate that belongs to the P-42 though ;) The operational Su-27 does not have the TWR that the operational F-15C does, like it or not. Further, I doubt the Su-27SK manual would be comparing to the streak eagle. I somehow don't thinks Russian intel is that dumb ;) The thing is GG: A modified airframe to set climb records would be very bad for combat performance. Special versions of the Su-27 and the F-15 were modified to beat each other climb-record. Remember the big climb post with swingkid and JoJo and Rhen? Indeed it even turned into a promised modification for FC 1.2 upgrade of the F-15C FM’s at high altitude? As an example, a formula One car setup for the Monaco circuit would be disastrous if used on a fast track in Monsa. DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I'm not sure what you're arguing. The chart shows performance FOR COMBAT AIRCRAFT, not one-off record-breakers. The Eagle's high-alt FM was found to produce too little thrust in MIL setting compared to the -1 charts which are again for COMBAT aircraft. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weta43 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Just curious - do you know what fuel loads the are planes carrying for the climb rates you gave ? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I would guess between 8000 and 10000lbs for both of them since this is meant for combat loaded aircraft coming off of their CAP. I'll also point out that this is probably a case of the F-15's variable inlets being more efficient at recovering pressure and thus causing the engines to generate more thrust at that altitude. I'll check the charts to see if they say anywhere what the exact fuel and weapons load is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 You were talking about the F-15 Streak eagle maybe! Not the F-15C…. :D What's the point of even comparing the Su-27 with the Streak Eagle in a combat manual? Did the Soviets think that the F-15 Streak Eagle was a threat? What was it gonna do, kill bandits by zooming past them? Common sense is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Back to the Mig-29: delivery problems to Algeria have dealt a serious blow to the credibility of RSK-Mig. The whole issue is they delivered old airframes. This would not be a problem, were it not that the new versions are claimed to be largely composite, whereas the surplus airframe stock is of course plain old alu. I wouldn't bet to much on the "newer" Mig-29 variants. The chance that you meet them in combat is still close to nil. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_GOZR Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Don't forget Russian titanium for example is far better than the US one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 ^^^^ Why, they got a better isotope? :D So what was the point of that GOZR? It has little to do with the MiG-29 or climb rates ... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedTiger Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I wouldn't bet to much on the "newer" Mig-29 variants. The chance that you meet them in combat is still close to nil. You know, not that the Russians should care, but all this business sure makes it hard to determine what planes are just a prototype, which are intended for serious export, and which are actually going to be bought by the Russian air force. You have to wade through a lot of crap to find out. I think they keep things intentionally ambiguous. :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nscode Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 What is thaT? It's a photo of one of Serbian MiG-29s during overhaul (secretly taken with a mobile phone :D) . Everything was supposed to be finished long ago for the first two aircraft, but there were some delays. Some say that the first flight is days away, but here.. nothing is ever for sure :D Btw, no big upgrades... just the plain old B and UB modified to meet NATO standards. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 AV8R posted this link in response to a video I posted at Simhq. It has some nice Mig-29 footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usM4XRY1HM8&NR=1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_GOZR Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 Tharos just for you guys to know. I say it again Russian have better Titanium and other alloy think about how this can be applied in an aircraft.. That all .. ;) just for your fyi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I suppose you meant that Mig-29 is not an all-alu plane as I claimed but that it has many titanium parts, like Su-27. I guess this is true indeed. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattler Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Gozr: love the skin. looks so metalic, great job. Thanks for remembering me, I really apprecitate the Mig29 skin. It will be on my Mig in a few secs. Ha Ha, well as fast as I can drop it in temptexture. Awesome job. Again many thanks for remembering I would like to have it. Cheers. Rep inbound.:thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I suppose you meant that Mig-29 is not an all-alu plane as I claimed but that it has many titanium parts, like Su-27. I guess this is true indeed. No, if you look at technical drawings of aircraft materials youll see that aluminum is only one of the materials used. Much of those are composits, some are titanium and few are steel. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Are you sure about that for an eighties aircraft? I would say that aircraft from that generation, including Tomcat, F-15, and later Su-27 and Mig-29 were largely aluminium, complemented with special steel and titanium. The F-16 again was a much more advanced design (something we seem always to forget), and certainly today's fighters are mostly composite. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Are you sure about that for an eighties aircraft? I would say that aircraft from that generation, including Tomcat, F-15, and later Su-27 and Mig-29 were largely aluminium, complemented with special steel and titanium. The F-16 again was a much more advanced design (something we seem always to forget), and certainly today's fighters are mostly composite. Define "largely." Both the F-15 and the Su-27 made extensive use of titanium - I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but it was something like 30%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I thought all those aircraft (F-15,F-16,A-10, Su-27, SU-25 and mig-29) had similar and comparable amount of the same materials. They where all designed in the 70 or 80 right, having similar thoughts on designed and construction? I know the F-16 is mostly aluminum, with some steel, few composite and very little titanium. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I thought the F-16 had composite wing sections, but I might mistake it with the Japanese F-2? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts